Unit 2

Evaluation of English translation of the Quran (1)

Evaluation of English translation of the Quran English

translation of the Quran began in 9461, some of famous

translators as follows: Alexsander Ross , his translation is named

The Alcoran of Mahomet George Sale his translation is named The

Alcoran of Mohammed Arberry A.J his translation is named the

koran Interpreted Pikthall Mohammad Marmaduke his translation

is named The Meaning of the glorious Quran Irving T.B. his

translation is named The Quran : The First American Version

Mohammad M. H. his translation is named The Quran Qarai Ali

Quli The Quran With a Phrase-by-Phrase English

Translation Glorifying of translation era has been proliferated in the

second half of twentieth century. We are presenting the Evaluation

of English translation of the Quran according to the book,

"Translating the Untranslatable" within two lessens (unit 2 & unit

3). Ross, Alexander The Alcoran of Mahomet, Translated Out

of Arabic for the Satisfaction of All That Desire to Looking into

Turkish Vanities (1649) _______ Alexander Ross was a leading

public figure of his day and enjoyed fame as a polemical writer, man

of letters, historian and chaplain of King Charles I. Born in Aberdeen,

Scotland, he was a student of divinity and philosophy. His interest in

Turkey and Islam, which he dubs as “Turkish” religion, grew as a

result of the increasing diplomatic, trade and travel links between

Britain and the Ottoman empire, the latter being the superpower of the

day. A few clays before its publication, his translation of the Quran,

which happens to be the first one in English, the Council of State,

England banned its publication on 2 March 1649, fearing that “the

Quran, backed by the powerful empire of the Ottomans might...

implant itself in English society.” In order to allay this apprehension

Ross added to his work two prefatory flotes: “A summary of the

Religion of the Turks, and The translator to the Christian Reader.”

Both of these assert that the “Turkish” religion being a mere heresy

“could not shake Christian faith.” In pursuance of the same objective

he appended to his work, even after it had been printed, two more

pieces: “A Needful caveat or Admonition for them who desire to

know what use may be made of, or if there be danger in reading the

Alcoran,” and The Life and Death of Mahornet.” The polemical

intent of the former is evident from its title. As to the latter, it is

downright abusive, teeming with imaginary scandalous stories and

calumny directed against the Prophet (peace be UOfl him). His other

works on history too, betrayhis anti-Islam bigotry. His poor

understanding and distortion of things Islamic corne out even in the

title of his translation: “The Akoran of Mahorne4 Translated out of

Arabic for the satisfaction of all that desire to looking into Turkish

vanities.” (italics mine). Not only its patently polemical, some of its

other features are equally odd. First, contrary to its claim, it is not a

translation from Arabic. Rather, it is a poor English version of Sieur

Du Ryers French translation of the Quran which had appeared in

1647. This French translation, as Henry Stubbe observes “is very

corrupt, altering and omitting many passages.”° Among all the

English translators of the Quran, Ross alone has perhaps the

unenviable, rather unimaginable distinction of being a translator of

the Quran, who did not know any Arabic. Sale, Stubbe and Zwerner

are among several Orientalists who testify to Ross’s lack of

knowledge of Arabic. Sale’s comment is highly instructive: Ross’s

English version is no other than a translation of Du Ryer’s, and that a

very had one; for Alexander Ross who did it, being utterly

unacquainted with Arabic, and no great master of the French, has

added a number of fresh mistakes of his own to those of Du Ryer, not

to mention the meanness of his language, which would make a better

book look ridiculous.2 Nabil Matar elaborates the above point further:

Ross did not know Arabic and relied completely on tht French

translation by Andrew Du Ryer... He translated word for word from

the French.0 Owing to his total unfamiliarity with Arabic and Islamic

(extS. Ross does not cite even a single Muslim source in his notes on

the Quran. Worse, he attributes to Prophet Muhammad (peace be

upon him) such statements which he never made. tintil the publication

of George Sale’s translation in 1734, i.e. for more than a century,

however, this extremely defective translation served as the main

source of the study of the Quran and Islam in English.

Notwithstanding its markedly polemical tenor, it stands out as the first

English translation, which paved the way for the study of the Quran in

England on a wider scale in the years to corne. Though it was eclipsed

by Sale’s translation, it was reprinted at regular intervals in the US in

the nineteenth century. Since 1948, however, it has not been re-

issued. Ross’s work is a telling example of all the characteristics of an

Orientalist writing on Islam — sheer hostility and bigotry towards all

things Islamic which Muslims regard as sacred; polemical/missionary

motive behind the writing; shockingly Insufficient knowledge of

Islamic texts and serving the sole objective of misguiding and

prejudicing readers against Islam. The narrowness of Ross’s stance is

betrayed by his labelling Islam as a “Turkish” religion. His audacity

in having translated the Quran without possessing any knowledge of

Arabic is Outrageous.

REFERENCES

1. Heruy Stubbe, AnAaouniof the RAie €md Progress of Mahometan

As,’, uith the Lije of Ma/jomet, ed. Hafiz Mahmud Khan Shirani.

Lahore, Sh. Muhammad Ashraf, 1954-1959. 2. George Sale. The

Koran. London, Fredreick Warne, 1734. vii. 3. Nahil Matar,

“Alexander Ross and the First English Translation of the Quran,”

Muslim W’&88:1 (January 1998), 82 and 85. Publication details of

the first edition: LOndo, 1649. &O3 pages

The Koran, Commonly called the Alcoran of

Mohammed George Sale (1734)

George Sale, the son of a London merchant, studied law and Arabic.

In view of his mastery over Arabic, the Society for Promoting

Christian Knowledge (SPCK), London, selected him as a member of

the team entrusted with the job of producing the Arabic translation of

the New Testament for promoting Christianity among the Arabic-

speaking people. Prompted by his own interest in the Quran and by

his close association with the SPCK, Sale decided to undertake the

English translation of the Qui-an. He was aware of the deficiencies in

the European translations of the Quran. However, his main motive

behind his venture was polemical, as is evident from his own

statement of intent: ،imagine it almost needless either to make an

apology for publishing the following translation, or to go about to

prove it as a work of use as well as curiosity.., it is absolutely

necessaty to undeceive those who, from the ignorant or unfair

translations which have appeared, have entertained too favorable an

opinion of the original, and also to enable us effecnially to expose the

imposture... For the Koran being so manifest a forgery! The

Protestants alone are able to attack the Koran with success, and for

them, I think Providence has reserved the glory of its overthrow.° Not

content with even this, he offers detailed instructions to Christian

missionaries as to how they should COflvCit Muslims to Christian

faith. Unlike his predecessor in the field, Alexander Ross, Sale was

conversant with both the Arabic language and tajuir corpus. Yet his

translation suffers from every conceivable type of defect —

omissions, mistranslations and interpolation of extraneous material

into the body of the translation. In his brilliant critique, Ghulam

Sarwar identifies numerous instances of the unpardonable liberties

taken by Sale: just as Sale distorts the meaning of the Holy Quran by

substitution of “O Men of Mecca” for the general expression ‘O men”

or “O mankind” in the same he puts in (y. 143, ch. 2) “You O

Arabians,” whereas God means “Ye” (Muslims). The words “O

Arabians” or “of Mecca” are not in the text hut Sale’s interpolations.

In verse 191, chapter 2 “And persecution in faith is worse than war,”

is rendered by Sale, “For temptation to idolatry is more grievous than

slaughter.” The interpolation of the words “to idolatry” being

intended by Sale to insinuate the intolerance of Islam to other

religions. In verse 12, chapter 5, “And sent forward to Goci a g

sending,” is rendered by Sale, “And lend unto God on usury.” This is

simply ridiculous. In y. 43, ch.15, fourteen words of the original

enlarged into forty-seven in the translation. Let all the readers of the

Holy Quran be aware of forgeries. The following is a most wilful

rnistransI1 of Sale’s (ch. 22, v.52): “We have sent no prophet bef

thee, but when he read, Satan suggested sorne error in reading.” All

Christian writers have harped upon this” and the fancied occasion on

which it is said to have revealed, ... the translation given above is

entirely for the words “read” and “reading” are not in the text.2 nave

Sale is guilty also of having mistranslated a/-gha)’b as “mysteries of

faith” and bi is,,, Al/ab a/-Rahmm a/-Rabee,,, as “In the name of the

most merciful God.” In the latter instance he tends to take aI-Rahma,i

and a/-Rriheem as perfect synonymous and lumps the two together

under his loose rendering, “the most merciful.” Throughout his

Preliminary Discourse and his explanatory notes he aims at pressing

home that the Quranic text is imperfect and that Prophet Muhammad

(peace be upon him) erred in composing it. Mohar Ah, a leading

Islamic scholar, passes the following judgement on Sale’s work on the

basis of his thorough, critical analysis: Sale reproduced all the faults

and mistakes of Marracci [the Latin translator of the Quran in 1698]

in his translation and flotes; and as the intention was to overthrow the

Quran, Sale spared no means to distort its meaning. The distortion

was done in a number of ways, mainly, a) paraphrasing; b) deliberate

mistranslation and also mistranslation due to i) omission of words or

expressions in the text from the meaning; ii) lack of understanding of

the correct meaning of some Arabic expressions, iii) the use of

Christian theological terms and concepts, iv) and interpolation of

words and expressions extraneous to the text and c) faulty notes and

comments. The whole work is replete with these faults.3 Regrettably,

despite these serious defects in both the conception and execution of

Sale’s translation, it had phenomenal reception in the West. Its more

than 160 editions make it as the most popular and oft-printed English

translation in both the UK and US. Its 67 American editions have set

a record in publication history. Almost every library in the West has

its copy on the shelf. Only after 1950s has its popularity declined, as it

was replaced by N.J. Dawood’s and A.J. Arberry’s translations

brought out by the leading Western publishers — Penguin and Oxford

University Press respectively. Sale’s English translation was rendered

into sorne European languages, for example, by Theodere Arnold into

German in 1746, by Kalmkov into Russian in 1792 and by Litza in

Bulgarian in 1902. In sum. Sale appears as a Christian missionary,

polemicist and Orientalist in the light of his pronouncements on

Islam, the Prophet and the Quran. His avowed aim was to expose the

“imposture” of the Prophet, the “forgeries” of the Quran and “to

attack [Islami with success” in order to attain” the glory of its

overthrow.”

REFERENCES

1. George Sale, “To the Reader” in The Koran. London, J. Wilcox,

1734, iv. 2. Ghulam Sarwar, “A Review of the Previous Translations

of the Holy Quran,” in his Translation of the HoڑyQuran, Karachi,

Pakistan, National Book Foundation, 1973, xi, xii, xv and xvii. 3. M.

Mohar Mi, The Quran and the Orienta/isis, Norwich, IJK, Jamiyat

Ihyaa Minhaj al-Sunnah, 2004, 332.

Publication details of the first edition: London, J. Wilcox, 1734,

187+508 pages Number of Editions: Around 170 Other Reviews: o

Swan, George “Review on Sale’s The Koran” Muslim World 20:2

(April 1930), 208. o Shellabear, G. W. “Is Sale’s Koran Reliable?”

Muslim World 21 (1931), 126-142. o Sarwar, Ghulam “A Review of

the Previous Translations of the Holy Quran” in his Translation of the

Ho/y Quran Karachi, Pakistan National Book Foundation, 1973. vii-

xxii.

Arberry, A. J. The Koran Interpreted .

(1955)

Since its publication in 1955, the renowned British Orientalist,

Arthur J. Arberry’s translation of the Quran, The Koran Interpreted

has enjoyed immense popularity. It has been reprinted around 30

times. Its handy World Classic edition brought out by the Oxford

University Press is available in almost every Western library and

bookstore. The wide acclaim this translation has won may be

attributed, in large measure, to Arherry’s impeccable credentials as a

scholar of Arabic and Islamic Studies. Arberry (1905-1969), had

served as Head, Department of Classics, Cairo University, Egypt and

later as Professor of Arabic and Persian at the Universities of London

and Cambridge. During his stay in Egypt, the gained thorough

familiarity with Muslim culture, including literature. Illustrative of it

are his excellent translations of dozens of Arabic, Persian and Urdu

literary masterpieces°. However, what makes him stand out above

other Orientalists, both his predecessors and c ntemporarieS, is that his

works are free, to a great extent, from the errors of perspective

common among other Orientalists. For example in a sharp contrast to

other Orientalist English translators of the Quran, ranging from

Alexander Ross (1649) to Richard Bell (1937), in the Preface to his

translation, he, at least, faithfully records the Muslim belief about the

divine origin of the Quran. Moreover, unlike others, he does not harp

on the so-called sources of the Quran or it being the product of the

prophet’s mind. On the contrary, he is seen severely criticizing his

predecessors, namely, Ross, Sale, Rodwell and Bell for the lack of

scholarly impartiality in their approach to the Quran. He illustrates, in

particular, how Bell, as a representative of Higher Criticism, threw

himself “with brisk enthusiasm into the task of demolishing the

Koran”. Far from others who see little merit in the form or contents of

the Quran, he pays glowing homage to “the rhetorical and rhythmical

patterns which are the glory and sublimity of the Koran.”4 Yet these

valuable elements should not blind one to some serious incongruities

in his work which appear all the more odd in view of his enviable

command over Arabic. There are instances of omission and

mistranslation too, to which we would revert later in this piece. First,

bet us begin with some inexplicable and intriguing aspects of his

work: o His thirty-one pages long Preface does not say a word about

the contents or message of the Quran. Although he produced this

work specifically for the Western, non-Muslim readers, it never

occurs to him to introduce the Quran to them. Being new to the Quran

his target readership needed all the more some guidance on the

subject matter, themes and impact of the Quran. This gap appears

more marked because his work does not have even a single

explanatory note. It consists only of the translation of the text and a

short Index, bereft of any background material on the Quranic

personalities, allusions, and historical events. Without any

commentary or authorial notes, a translation alone cannot and does

not advance the understanding of the Quran, especially of those

studying it for the first time. o Equally hard to justify is his use of

archaic, outdated expressions of the King James Bible in a work

published in 1955. His readers must have found these expressions

mostly incomprehensible. The preponderance of such obsolete words

comes out sharply in the following instances: Thee only we serve; to

Thee alone we pray for SUCCOUr Guide us on the straight path, The

path of those who Thou hast blessed, Not of those against whom Thou

art wrathful, Nor of those who are astray. Here is another passage

littered with unintelligible words: My Lord, hast Thou willed Thou

wou/dst have destroyed them before, and me. Wilt Thou destroy us

for what the foolish ones Of us have done? It is only T4ىy trial

whereby Thou kaa’est astray whom Thou wilt, and uidest Whom

Thou wilt. Thou ad our Protector. o Nowhere in his work has Arberry

mentioned the Arabic Surah titles; these appear only in their English

version. At places, he employs highly unusual ones: Surah 30 al-Rum

as The Greeks Surah 07 al-A’raf as the Battlement Surah 35 Fatir as

the Angels Surah 25 al-Furqan as Salvation Surah 56 al-Waqi’ah at

The Terror Both the Surahs 23 and 40, al-Muminun and al-Mumin

respectively are assigned the same title “The Believers” o As already

indicated, Arberry’s works is without any explanatory notes. As a

result, one gets no idea about his mindset regarding things Quranic.

Only the Index to his work provides some clues about his approach

which is, in several instances, flawed. The Quran relates at length

Prophet Abraham’s quest for truth, stating how he discarded one after

another such objects of nature as the sun, the moon and stars as

unworthy of the Lordship. In the Index, however, this episode is

branded as “Abraham’s conversion”. This description does not do

justice to the import of the Quran. According to the Quran, after

man’s creation. Allah directed the angels to prostrate before him.

Arberry refers to it under the misleading heading, “Adam worshipped

by the angels.”8 Quranic scholars have tried, down the ages, to

identify the historicity of Dhu al-Qarnayn. There is divergence of

opinion among them about his true identity, as they cite different

personalities in this context, ranging from 1) Alexander the Great to

(2) a pre-historic king contemporary with Prophet Abraham (peace

and blessings be upon him) bearing the identical name of Alexander,

(3) a king of Persia, Ram and (4) a pre-historic Himyarite king from

Yemen. However, Arberry arbitrarily equates Dhu al Qarnayn with

Alexander the Great9 It is recorded in Surah al-Ahqaf that Allah made

some jinn listen to the Quran. Arberry, however, places this incident

under the index heading “Jinn listen to Muhammad”.OO) This readily

brings to mind the Orientalist stance about the Prophet’s authorship of

the Quran. o Another glaring incongruity is Arberry’s work is his

inappropriate use of the peculiarity Christian th logica1 terminology.

In his Preface he cites the Quranic passage on the birth of Pr phet

Jesus (peace and blessings be upon him) while calling it as the

“passage on the Nativity of Our Lord”1. In a similar vein is his claim

about the distinguishing feature of his translation: If, set out like this,

the Koranic treatment of his most sacred theme seems to recall,

however, distantly and however faintly, some medieval Christian

carol, the resemblance is surely not fortuitous; but I make bold to

claim that the point escapes notice in any other kind of translation

(12). As already stated, this work is not free from instances of

omission and mistranslation either. Following are the examples in

which Arberry, for reasons best known to him, fails to render certain

Quranic words in his translation, as a result of which it has turned

faulty. 1. Ah Imran 3:43: The Quranic phrase ma’a/-rak’iyin is left

out: Mary, be obedient to thy Lord, prostrating and bowing before

Him. (Arberry’s incorrect version)’3 Mary, be obedient to your Lord,

prostrating and bo with those who bow. (correct) 2. al-Dhariyat 5 4ى :

The Quranic expression amra is left Out: By the swift scatterers and

the burden bearers and the smooth runners and the partitioners.

(incorrecO°4 By the swift scatterers and the burden bearers and the

smooth runners and the partitioners by command. . (Correct). 3. al-

Mumtahanah 60:12: The Quranic expression fabaayuhunna is left out:

O Prophet, when believing women came to thee, swearing fealty to

thee upon the terms that they will not associate with God anything,

and will not steal, neither commit adultery, nor slay their children, nor

bring a calumny, they forge between their hands and their feet, nor

disobey thee in ought honourable, as God’s forgiveness for them. God

is A11forgiVifl8, All-Compassionate. (incorrect) (15). O Prophet,

when believing woman come to you, swearing fealty to you upon the

terms that they will not associate with God anything, and will not

steal, neither commit adultery, nor slay their children, nor bring a

calumny, they forge between their hands and their feet, nor disobey

you in ought honourable the,, accept their a/giance, as God’s

forgiveness for them. God is All-Forgiving, Mi-Compassionate.

(correct) Instances of mistranslation too, are not uncommon in

Arberry’s work. Illustrative of it are the following: o A1Tawbah 9:64

“The hyprocrites are afraid, lest a Surah should be sent down against

them, telling thee what is in their hearts” (incorrect)°6 “The

hypocrites are afraid, lest a Surah should be sent down about them,

showing them what is in their hearts”. (correct) o Al-Anfal 8:59 “And

thou are not to suppose that they who disbelieve me have outstripped

Me; they cannot frustrate My Will.” (incorrect)17 “And let not those

who disbelieve suppose that they can outstrip. They cannot frustrate

(Allah’s purpose).” (correct) o Al-Furqan 25:62: “And it is He Who

made the night and day a succession for whom He desires to

remember or He desires to be thankful.” (incorrect)”8 “And it is He

Who made the night and day a uccession for him who desires to

remember or desires to be thankful.” (correct) o A1-Sajadah, 32:23

“Indeed We gave Moses the Book, so be not in doubt concerning the

encounter with him”. (incorrect) (19) “Indeed We gave Moses the

Book, so be not in doubt of his receiving its” (correct) o A1-Tawbah

9:70: “Has there not corne to you the tidings of those who were before

jou?” (incorrect)2” “Has there not come to you the tidings of those

wflo were before them?” (correct) o All Imran 3:115: “And whatever

good jou do,jou shall not be denied the just reward of it.”

(incorrecO21 “And whatever good they do they shall not be denieci

the just reward of it.” (correct) o A1-Shu’ara 26:108: So serve you

God, and obey you me (incorrect22 . “So fear God, and obey me.”

(correct) o al-Waqiah 56:11 “Those are they brought nigh Throne”.

(incorrect)23 “Those are they brought nigh.” (correct) o al-Waqiah

56:88: “Then if he be of those brought nigh the Throne.” (incorrect

)(24) “Then if he is of those brought nigh.” (correct) o al-Nisa 4:157:

“And for their saying, “We slew the Messiah Jesus son of Mary, the

Messenger of God” — yet they did not slay him, nor crucified him,

only a likeness of that was shown to them. Those who are at variance

concerning him are surely in doubt regarding him they have no

knowledge of him, except the following of surmise.” (incorrect)2

“And for their saying, “We slew the Messiah Jesus son of Mary, the

Messenger of God” — yet they did not slay him, nor crucified him,

but it appears so unto them. Those who are at variance concerning it

are surely in doubt regarding it; they have no knowledge of it, except

the following of surmise.” (correct) o Yunus 10:88: “Moses said: our

Lord, Thou hast given Pharaoh and his council adornment and

possessions this present life. Our Lord, let them go asirqyfrom Tbj

wqy”. (incorrect26 “Moses said: our Lord, You have given to Pharaoh

and his council adornment and possessions in this present life and so,

Our lord, they mislead (men) from Your way.” (correct) o Hud 11:30:

:0 My people, who would help me against God, if I drive jou away?

Will you not remember?” (incorrect)27 “O My people, who would hip

me against God, if I drive them away? Will you not take heed?”

(correct) o Hud 11:46: “Said He, “Noah! He is not of thy family; it is

a deed not righteous. Do not ask Me that whereof thou hast no

knowledge.” (incorrect)(28) As is evident from above examples,

Arberry’s mistranslation often twists the intended meaning of some

Quranic verses. In view of his enviable mastery over Arabic language,

these mistakes appear not only unpardonable but also inexplicable.

Another irksome feature of Arberry’s work is his too literal

translation of certain Quranic expressions. Granted the English

equivalents employed by him may be etymologically or literally

sound; nonetheless, they leave an odd impression On the mind of an

average reader who may not necessarily appreciate the etymological

background of the English equivale chosen by Arberry. As is evident

from the following examples of this type, Arberry’s translation in

these instances, far from advancing one’s understanding of the Quran,

makes the import of the Quran somewhat incomprehensible and

beWilders the readers: S.No. Surah No. Verse Quranic Arberry’s No.

Expre- choice choice sslon 1. al-Hijr 15 53 ‘aIim Cunning Wise 2. al-

Dhariyat 51 28 ‘aIim Cunning Wise 3. aI-Anhiya 21 72 Nafila In

superfluity Grandson or additional gift 4. Fatir 35 34 Shakur All-

thankful All-Appreciative 5. Al-Shura 42 23 Shakur Mi-thankful All-

Appreciative 6. Al-Taghabun 64 17 Shakur All-thankful All-

Appreciative 7. Al-Baqarah 2 158 Shakr All-thankful All-Responsive

8. Al-A’raf 7 157 al-nabi Prophet of common folk al-ummi or The

unlettered Prophet 9. Al-A’raf 7 158 al-nabi Prophet of common folk

al-ummi or The unlettered Prophet In his brilliant analysis,

Muhammad Mohar Mi provides many more instances of Arberry’s a)

employment of Christian theological terms that distort the meaning of

the Quran, b) distortion of the meaning, c) mistakes owing to his

failure to understand the Quranic expressions, d) additions to or

omissions from the original, and e) mistakes on account of his

carelessness. Only some of these are recounted below: (a) Equally

purposeful is his translation of the first part of qyab 14:27 as “God

confirms those who believe with the firm word. The clear meaning

Ofyuthabbitu is “he establishes or makes firm.” The term

“confirmation” has a very well known sense in Christian theology

signifying “the rite by which people are admitted to full communion

in many Christian churches, “to confirm” means “to put through a

ceremony to admit to fiji! religious communion.” Again, a very

significant twist is given in translating the initial clause of 16:102, as

“Say: The Holy Spirit sent it down from thy Lord.” (The term nih a/-

qua’s is another name for the angel Jibril and he is meant here. But

Arberry gives a double twist here. Fie capitalizes [the Holy Spirit] ...

so as to make it conform to the Christian concept of the Holy Spirit,

and he translates nana/a as “sent down”, though it also means

“brought down” and which is the sense here, especially as the phrase

“from your Lord” follows it. . (b) The clause in 2:58 is translated as:

“and say, Unburdening; We will forgive your transgressions.” ...

Arberry translates the expression biteab as Unhurdening, writing it

with a capital letter and putting a semicolon after it. This makes the

sense unintelligiblé, violates the grammatical from of its being a

conditional clause and makes the clause “We will forgive you” appear

as an independent statement rather than the çonclusion of the

conditional clause. . (c) He fails to grasp the meaning Of the idiom

‘anjadin in the last clause of ajab 9:29 and translates it as: “out of

hand”; while the correct meaning of the idiom is “in submission”.

Again he misunderstands the idiomatic clause at tue beginning of 21

:64faraja’u i/a anfsibim, and translates it as: “So they returned one to

another,” which is confusing and unintelligible. The plain meaning of

the expression is that “they reflected”. (d) Often an additional clause

is added in the translation though it is not in the original. A gross

instance of this is his translation of 11:25. (e) Sometimes words are

carelessly read and hence translated wrongly. Thus he translates the

last clause of the qyab 30:2 2 inna fi dbalika la-ajatil /il alimin, as

“surely in that are signs for all living beings.” Clearly he takes the

word ‘alimin, which is the accusative form of ‘alimu,, meaning “men

of knowledge”, as ‘a/ami;!, meaning “all beings”P Besides these,

inaccurate and remote meanings are given for well known words

giving distorted or derogatory senses. Thus ajr(reward, recompense)

is more often translated as “wage”; aI-ba’th (resurrection) is translated

as “uprising” which word is susceptible of quite a different meaning

than resurrection; mithqa/a dharrah (the weight of an atom) is

translated as “the weight of an ant” ‘ajarni (a non-Arab) is translated

as “a barbarian”; mursalin (Messengers) is translated as “Envoys”;

tuftanuna (you are tried/tested) is translated as “you are being

proved”; and so on. To sum up, Arberry’s translation, rich in stylistic

qualities and sympathetic in its stance on Islam, is superior to other

translations of the Quran rendered by Orientalists. Nonetheless, in

view of the above criticism it should be used cautiously.

REFERENCES

1. Of Arberry’s spate of translations the following deserve mention in

particular: Arabic: Attar’s Tadhkirat a/-Au/jya,’ Al-Niffari’s Mawaqjf

and Mukhatabat, Ibn al-Farid’s Mjîstica/ Poems; The Seven Odes; Al-

Sarraj’s Kitab al-L uma, Al Mutanabbi’s Poems. Persian: Translations

of the poems of Ru mi, Hafiz and Umar Khayyam. Urdu: Poetical

works of Iqbal. 2. Aj. Arberry, The Koran Interpreted, London,

George Allen and Unwin, 1980. 2 Volumes. 1,25. All subsequent

references are to this edition. 3. Ibid., 2, 10. 4. Ibid., 1, 25. 5. Ibid., 1,

29. 6. Ibid., 1, 189. 7. Ibid., 2, 364. 8. Ibid., 2, 364. 9. Ibid., 2, 364. lo.

Ibid., 2, 364. il. Ibid., 1, 21. 12. Ibid., 1, 27. 13. Ibid., 1, 79. 14. Ibid.,

2, 237. 15. Ibid., 2, 273. 16. Ibid., 1, 214. 17. Ibid., 1, 204. 18. Ibid., 2,

61. 19. Ibid., 2, 119. 20. Ibid., 1, 215. 21. Ibid., 1, 88. 22. Ibid., 2, 69.

23. Ibid., 2, 254. 24. Ibid., 2, 257. 25. Ibid., 1, 123. 26. Ibid., 1, 235.

27. Ibid., 1, 242. 28. Ibid., 1, 244. 29. Muhammad Mohar Ah, The

Quan and the Orienta/ists, Ipswich, UK, Jamiyat Ihyyaa Minhaaj al-

Sunnah, 2004, pp. 345, 347, 348, 349 and 350-351.

Publication details of the first edition: London, Allen and Unwin,

1955, 2 Volumes, Vol 1: 350 pages and Vol. 2: 367 pages.

Number of Editions: 30 Other Reviews: o M. Mohar Mi, The

,Quran and the Orienta/jEts, Ipswich, UK, 2004, 343- 354. o A.L.

Tibawi, “Review on The Koran Interpreted”, Is/amùQuartcrly

(January 1957), 8. o Alfred Guillaume, “Review on The Koran

Interpreted”, Muslim World, 47:3 (July 1957), 248-249. o M.

Ruthven, “Review on Arbeny’s The Koran”, Middle East Journal 228,

(June 1984), 19.